Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2024, 2:46 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 2:46 pm

Are both of these in real, or nominal dollars?

Don't cry "Irrelevant!....(....sob.....)"

Follow the link and look for yourself.

You're still evading...go **** yourself.

ConsRule » 04 Jun 2024, 2:49 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 2:49 pm

Follow the link and look for yourself.

You're still evading...go **** yourself.

I did...

Now answer.
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2024, 2:38 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 2:38 pm

Factors that can affect median household income include: Age, Race or ethnicity, Location, and Number of people in the household.


 

It is still the income of the household...and much more reflective of the entire workforce.

Assume you have a "workforce population" of 11 households (or 11 million if it makes you feel better): 5 households earn $37k, 1 earns $65k, 4 earn $100k and 1 earns $1 mil.  The median household income is $65k but the average household income is $150k.  Fast forward 3 years: you still have 5 earning $37k, 1 earning $65k, 4 earning $100k but now 1 earns $2 mil.  The average household income jumped to $241k (rounded) but the median is still $65k...did things get better for most people?

The link YOU provided was "Average Hourly Earnings" in the private sector.  From that link, they admit "The Average Hourly Earnings of All Private Employees is a measure of the average hourly earnings of all private employees on a “gross” basis, including premium pay for overtime and late-shift work." That is an admission/acknowledgement that the excluded salary employees...not every household is only made up of hourly employees.  The are also, per the title of their graph, excluding the public sector and military. Those people are parts of household, so the household measure is more inclusive.

Also from the link YOU provided, "It is important to note that this series measures the average hourly earnings of the pool of workers in each period. Thus, changes in average hourly earnings can be due to either changes in the set of workers observed in a given period, or due to changes in earnings. For instance, in recessions that lead to the disproportionate increase of unemployment in lower-wage jobs, average hourly earnings can increase due to changes in the pool of workers rather than due to the widespread increase of hourly earnings at the worker-level. They admit they don't look at all hourly employees and increases may not be due to increases in actual earnings.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2024, 3:02 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 3:02 pm

I did...

Now answer.

If you did that, you know the answer.

You're still evading...go **** yourself.
 

ConsRule » 04 Jun 2024, 3:08 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 3:08 pm

It is still the income of the household...and much more reflective of the entire workforce.

Assume you have a "workforce population" of 11 households (or 11 million if it makes you feel better): 5 households earn $37k, 1 earns $65k, 4 earn $100k and 1 earns $1 mil.  The median household income is $65k but the average household income is $150k.  Fast forward 3 years: you still have 5 earning $37k, 1 earning $65k, 4 earning $100k but now 1 earns $2 mil.  The average household income jumped to $241k (rounded) but the median is still $65k...did things get better for most people?

The link YOU provided was "Average Hourly Earnings" in the private sector.  From that link, they admit "The Average Hourly Earnings of All Private Employees is a measure of the average hourly earnings of all private employees on a “gross” basis, including premium pay for overtime and late-shift work." That is an admission/acknowledgement that the excluded salary employees...not every household is only made up of hourly employees.  The are also, per the title of their graph, excluding the public sector and military. Those people are parts of household, so the household measure is more inclusive.

Also from the link YOU provided, "It is important to note that this series measures the average hourly earnings of the pool of workers in each period. Thus, changes in average hourly earnings can be due to either changes in the set of workers observed in a given period, or due to changes in earnings. For instance, in recessions that lead to the disproportionate increase of unemployment in lower-wage jobs, average hourly earnings can increase due to changes in the pool of workers rather than due to the widespread increase of hourly earnings at the worker-level. They admit they don't look at all hourly employees and increases may not be due to increases in actual earnings.

Not only is it the wrong number (as it is a function of BOTH income and the number of people in the household, which is not fixed), it is also wrong.

You may go to your second citation (where you got 22-24), scroll down to the graph showing both nominal and real median household income, and redo your math...after which you are to avert your eyes, fall to your knees and beseech me for mercy.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2024, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 3:19 pm

Not only is it the wrong number (as it is a function of BOTH income and the number of people in the household, which is not fixed), it is also wrong.

You may go to your second citation (where you got 22-24), scroll down to the graph showing both nominal and real median household income, and redo your math...after which you are to avert your eyes, fall to your knees and beseech me for mercy.

I'm not doing a **** thing until you PROVE my numbers wrong with links to credible sources.  The ball is COMPLETELY in your court.

You're evading again...go **** yourself!
 

ConsRule » 04 Jun 2024, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 3:26 pm

I'm not doing a **** thing until you PROVE my numbers wrong with links to credible sources.  The ball is COMPLETELY in your court.

You're evading again...go **** yourself!

Why do you keep saying I'm evading, when I'm telling you what is wrong with your evidence - then inviting you to look at YOUR sources to confirm it?

I think it is because, in the mouth of a cowardly MAGAt, the words have no meaning.

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2024, 2:18 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 2:18 pm

**** that...

Do the math.

Post the number.

What number?

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2024, 3:34 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 3:34 pm

Why do you keep saying I'm evading, when I'm telling you what is wrong with your evidence - then inviting you to look at YOUR sources to confirm it?

I think it is because, in the mouth of a cowardly MAGAt, the words have no meaning.

I gave you my sources.  There is no requirement you like them.  Prove the numbers wrong, with links to credible sources.

Until you do that...I'm done. Go **** yourself.
 

ConsRule » 04 Jun 2024, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 3:42 pm

I gave you my sources.  There is no requirement you like them.  Prove the numbers wrong, with links to credible sources.

Until you do that...I'm done. Go **** yourself.

The POINT being that you didn't look at them....and not only am I inviting you to do so now, I'm telling you exactly where to look.

This better be the last time, or the next one is gonna cut very deep.

ConsRule » 04 Jun 2024, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 3:42 pm

I gave you my sources.  There is no requirement you like them.  Prove the numbers wrong, with links to credible sources.

Until you do that...I'm done. Go **** yourself.

*rippy38 » 04 Jun 2024, 9:46 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 9:46 am

The progressive leftists and DC are losing their collective minds over this **** too.

https://i.postimg.cc/tTc8xbwx/Zombo-Mem ... 094810.jpg

I ****' love it!

LOL

 
 

RebelGator » 04 Jun 2024, 10:04 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 10:04 am

Pathetic asshole.

+1000

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2024, 11:21 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 11:21 am

Who is telling you that people have taken an economic hit?

                                                                                                                               
  

 
 

ROG62 » 04 Jun 2024, 4:15 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 4:15 pm

                                                                                                                             

See if you can find Connie...

She seems to have taken a powder..

@ConsRule  

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2024, 11:49 am » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 11:49 am

Your sources, you tedious lying asshole.

run bitch, RUN...

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2024, 12:12 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 12:12 pm

No...

The last time you went here, you refused to do any work.

It's pointless...

You're both uninformed and ineducable.

But, since you'll lie about it...

You use median household income to calculate the rate of wage inflation.

Median Household is not a fixed number.

Only an idiot would assume to use it to calculate inflation.

you do the work, ****...
 

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2024, 12:19 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 12:19 pm

That's what you think..

Yea...the Wage Inflation.

Look...You're dumb as a post....stop presuming.

thanks for your concession...bitch...

Blackvegetable » 04 Jun 2024, 1:58 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 1:58 pm

you are using the wrong number.

Do you understand the difference?

Answer the question.

run ****, RUN...
 

ROG62 » 04 Jun 2024, 4:23 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2024, 4:23 pm

run ****, RUN...

Just so you know....I'm only sticking around for your

"Oh, ****!"

moment.